SC ISSUES NEW GUIDELINES FOR SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATIONS

In a major overhaul and major revisit of the senior designation process of advocates, we see that the Supreme Court has once again stepped forward in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 etc and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 667 that was pronounced as recently as on May 13, 2025 has most significantly issued new guidelines for conferring senior advocate designations upon lawyers. It has most explicitly directed that the point-based assessment by the Permanent Committee that was evolved in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 and Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2023) 8 SCC 1 be departed with and discontinued. In a notable clarification, we see it was also clarified clearly by the top court that while processes already underway under the previous Indira Jaising framework will continue, no new applications should be accepted until new rules are framed.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Abhay S Oka for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of himself, Hon’ble Mr Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and so also Hon’ble Mr Justice SVN Bhatti sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth the factual background laying bare in para 1 that, “By the judgment of this Court in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors 2025 INSC 249 [for short, “Jitender @ Kalla”], a Bench of two judges of this Court expressed certain concerns regarding the process of designation of Senior Advocates laid down in the decision of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 [for short, “Indira Jaising-1”]. The Bench directed that the concerns expressed by it be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for considering whether the issues arising out of the said concerns need to be placed before a larger Bench of appropriate strength. As per the administrative order passed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, the issues arising out of the process of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates raised in the judgment dated 20th February 2025 in Jitender @ Kalla have been placed for consideration before this Bench. Before we delve into the concerns and issues raised by the Bench of two judges, it is important to consider the factual history that gave rise to the issues which require consideration.”

While referring to the case of Indira Jaising – 1, the Bench points out in para 2 that, “Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, “the Advocates Act”) creates two classes of Advocates, namely, senior Advocates and other Advocates. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate with his consent. Earlier, the Supreme Court and High Courts, in exercise of powers under Section 16, followed distinct systems of designating Senior Advocates. A Writ Petition was filed by Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking reforms in the system of designation of senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India. There were several other petitions challenging the processes of designation followed by various High Courts. The Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association had filed an Intervention Application challenging the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 on the ground that the classification of Advocates into two distinct classes was not based on any reasonable and acceptable basis and was violative of Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of India. The issues were clubbed together and heard by a bench of three judges of this Court.”

Above all and most significantly, we must now focus on what the top court laid down in para 87 in its conclusion which forms the cornerstone and backbone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “We, therefore, pass following orders:

(i) We direct that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1 as amended by Indira Jaising-2 shall not be implemented;

(ii) It will be a